UK musicians’ union clashes with record labels over 40% pay rise

The trade union for musicians in the UK has clashed with record label executives after it rejected an almost 40 per cent pay rise for some of its members.

The BPI, which represents labels such as Universal Music, Sony and Warner Music in the UK, has presented the Musicians’ Union with a new set of rates for recording sessions. The offer includes a near 40 cent pay increase for rock and pop artists and a 15 per cent rise for classical music sessions.

But the union has turned down the offer — which comes as workers in all sectors push for above-inflation pay rises to offset rising living costs — and decided not to put details of the proposed rates to its members, most of whom are sole traders, sparking questions over its approach from record label bosses.

One industry executive said working session musicians were “unlikely to be aware of the offer due to their union bosses and red tape committees refusing to put the offer to them for a ballot”.

When musicians are hired for recording sessions, they charge hourly rates. The MU and BPI agree standard contract terms and minimum fees, which are at present £43 an hour for a rock and pop session. Musicians can charge more if they wish.

The earnings of session musicians have not increased since 2019 at a time when some artists, songwriters and record labels have prospered given the growth in revenues from streaming, which has helped increase the shelf life of songs by established stars.

The UK competition watchdog last year found a “healthy” and rising level of profits linked to the increase in lower-cost streaming revenues for UK labels, and said companies’ recorded music operating margins had increased.

Record label insiders said the size of the BPI’s proposed pay rise reflected changes to the market from the growth in streaming. They added that the increase was also designed to address the rise of AI-generated music, which some see as a significant threat to session players’ livelihoods.

One person familiar with the proposal said it was “bizarre” that the MU did “not want to give members a chance to vote on another increase, and one that’s so big”. 

But Naomi Pohl, MU general secretary, defended the decision, saying that “even with a 38 per cent increase, the session rate has barely increased in 15 years and would remain lower than other equivalent Musicians’ Union recording rates”.

“On this basis, MU committee members don’t feel the offer is good enough to put to a ballot of members. The BPI represents major record labels who are making record profits from music streaming while session musicians currently receive no royalties at all, even if they play on big hits,” she added.

The union instead wants royalties for all musicians on streaming revenues, saying that “an uplift on the session fee would not help the thousands of musicians . . . who receive nothing at all”. 

Sophie Jones, interim BPI chief executive, said it was “disappointing” that the MU had not put the group’s offer to members and that the union’s demands “on top of this generous deal . . . are neither viable nor reasonable”.

She added that paying royalties on streaming revenues “would be like film companies being asked to retrospectively pay a royalty to all the cast and extras engaged to work on a project”.